YASHODA NAND GUPTA, Jaipur V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 1121/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1858 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI DCIT DR DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: ISHA KANOONGO
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Revised return
• Section: 54F; 148; 54

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1121/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI YASHODA NAND GUPTA PROP: MODERN CUT PIECE CENTRE MALAN KI GALI, ALWAR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 1(4) ALWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AHIPG 5374 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: MISS. ISHA KANOONGO, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SMT. POONAM RAI, DCIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/10/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 /12/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 04-11-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,70,891/-ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY NOT ALLOWING THE COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THE COST OF IM PROVEMENT OF RS. 8,00,000/- IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1991-92. ITA NO. 1121/JP/2016 SHRI YASHODA NAND GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), ALWAR . 2 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VA LUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER WITHOUT BRINGING ANY AD VERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD OR CAUSING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. FOLLOWIN G FACTS HAVE EMERGED. 1. THAT THE APPELLANT IS DERIVING INCOME FROM RUNNING CLOTH SHOP AND CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS REGULAR RETURN O F INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON 31-10-2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,27,306/-.LATER ON 31-10-2011, THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED A REVISED RETURN DECLARING ADDITIONAL INC OME OF RS. 6,95,D339/- FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. THAT AS THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOM E AND VERIFY THE CLAIM. 4. THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT OF LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45,35,983/-. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAD CLAIMED A CONSTRUCTION ON TH E LAND FOR RS. 8,00,000/- IN THE YEAR 1991-92 AND ALSO CLA IMED INVESTMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO CLAIM DEDUC TION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. WHILE CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54, IT WAS FOUND ITA NO. 1121/JP/2016 SHRI YASHODA NAND GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), ALWAR . 3 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,50,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT HE HAS INCURRED A COST OF RS. 1,65,000 /- ON THE RENOVATION OF THE HOUSE AND THEREFORE, CLAIMED DEDU CTION OF RS. 7,15,000/- UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 5.3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. I HAVE FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY REASONABLE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT I T HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8 LAKHS IN THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF BUILDING ON THE LAND PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1991-92. AS PER THE SALE DEED ONLY THE LAND PLOT WAS SOLD. TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE BUILD UP AREA WAS DEMOLISHED B EFORE BEING SOLD. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS DEVOID OF ANY REASONABLE MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO TA KEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT ON ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF INVESTMENT IN R ENOVATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PR ODUCE EVIDENCE OF RS. 52,400/- ONLY WHICH THE AO HAS ACCE PTED AND GIVEN THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F TO THAT EXT ENT. I FIND THAT THE AOS DECISION IS QUITE JUSTIFIED AS THE ON US OF PROVIDING AND PROVING THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT WITH THE DOCUMENTARY PROOF LIES WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HA S CONSIDERED AND GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT THE EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THEREFORE, THE COMPUTATION O F LTCG DONE BY THE AO IS JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 29,70,891/- IS SUSTAINED AND THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 29,70,891/- SUSTAINED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FOR WHICH THE LD .AR OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1121/JP/2016 SHRI YASHODA NAND GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), ALWAR . 4 FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 2.4 THE BENCH HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM RUNNING CLOTH SHOP AND CAPITAL GAINS DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,27,306/-. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT SUB SEQUENTLY ON 27-04- 2012, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A REVISED RETURN DECLA RING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 6,95,339/- FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD SOLD A PLOT OF LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 45,35,983/-. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAD CLAIMED A CONSTRUCTION ON THE LAND FOR RS. 8,00,000/- IN THE YEAR 1991-92 AND ALSO CLAIMED INVESTMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO CLA IM DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHI LE CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT HAD PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY FOR AN AMOUNT OF ITA NO. 1121/JP/2016 SHRI YASHODA NAND GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), ALWAR . 5 RS. 5,50,000/-, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED T HAT HE HAS INCURRED A COST OF RS. 1,65,000/- ON THE RENOVATION OF THE HOU SE AND THEREAFTER CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 7,15,000/- U/S 54 OF THE A CT. LOOKING INTO ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AO C OMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 29,70,891/- AND THUS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,70,891/-. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CO NFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY REASONABLE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT I T HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8 LAKHS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDI NG ON THE LAND PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1991-92. AS PER THE SALE DEED ONLY THE LAND PLOT WAS SOLD. TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT TH E BUILD UP AREA WAS DEMOLISHED BEFORE BEING SOLD. THE CLAIM OF THE APPE LLANT IS DEVOID OF ANY REASONABLE MERIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS JUSTIF IED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOU NT THAT ON ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF INVESTMENT IN RENOVATION OF THE RESIDENTIA L PROPERTY, HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF RS. 52,400/- ONLY WHICH THE AO HAS ACCEPTED AND GIVEN THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F TO THAT EXTENT. I FIND THAT THE AOS DECISION IS QUITE JUSTIFIED AS THE ON US OF PROVIDING AND PROVING THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT WITH THE DOCUMENTA RY PROOF LIES WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED AND GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT THE EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCE D BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THEREFORE, THE CO MPUTATION OF LTCG DONE BY THE AO IS JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,70,891/- IS SUSTAINED AND THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE REPEATED THE SAME ARGUMENT AS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD.AR HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH COULD CONFRONT THE ADDITION ITA NO. 1121/JP/2016 SHRI YASHODA NAND GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), ALWAR . 6 CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE CANNOT B E ACCEPTED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE BENCH CONCURS WITH THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/12/2 017 SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18 /12/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI YASHODA NAND GUPTA, ALWAR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 1 (4), ALWAR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1121/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR